Our Opinion: FOIA not that complicated

The principle of freedom of information ought to be one of the simplest concepts for any governmental body to understand and execute.

The State Journal-Register

Writer

Posted Jun. 13, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jun 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Posted Jun. 13, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jun 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM

The principle of freedom of information ought to be one of the simplest concepts for any governmental body to understand and execute.

If it’s a matter of public business conducted by a public agency, the public is entitled to know about it. The new Illinois Freedom of Information Act makes this amply clear, and it applies reasonable restrictions so that disclosure of public business does not spill over into divulging sensitive personal information.

Springfield city government, however, has seemed determined in recent years to make this whole issue as complicated as possible. Back in 2003, the city began redacting routine information from building permits — about as mundane a public document in existence. The next year, the city would not release information on the number of minorities employed by the city.

This year, though, it’s a different story. In January, the city established a new website (www.springfield.il.us/publicfoia) devoted solely to Freedom of Information Act requests. Mayor Tim Davlin touted the new site in a press release: “Since FOIA requests are themselves, public documents, the City has increased the transparency and accountability of City government by making these documents easily accessible to anyone with a computer.”

Last week, though, the city’s zeal for making public information public caused it, and some private citizens whose privacy was compromised, some serious problems. A routine check of the site showed that personal information — Social Security numbers, bank account numbers and drivers’ license numbers — had been released in numerous documents that were posted to the site.

Even the new, expanded Freedom of Information Act that went into effect this year is explicit in exempting such information from public status. The city scrambled Thursday to remove the unabridged documents.

This is mind-boggling to us on two levels. First, how does a government body go from extremes of secrecy to extremes of breaching privacy? And second, how can any government possibly make something that should be so simple into something this troublesome?

We think we got a clue in the press release that announced this site. By posting every FOIA request — including the name of requester and the document sought — the city was in effect daring citizens to make FOIA requests. (“Sure, you can request this information, as long as you’re willing to have the world know you’re requesting it.”) While we agree that FOIA requests are themselves public documents, and should therefore be available for public inspection if requested, these are not the kind of documents for which the law was revised. Without doubt, posting the names of and information sought by those making FOIA requests is consistent with the letter of the law. Our question is whether it is in keeping with — or perhaps in defiance of — the law’s spirit.

Page 2 of 2 - Don’t get us wrong. A site strictly for public information is a great idea, if thoughtfully constructed. The city already does a good job of making routine documents — building permits, city employee information, zoning cases and other information — readily available on the “public records” portion of its website.

Neither government officials nor private citizens in Illinois should fear open government. Mistakes like those by the city of Springfield last week only enforce the misbegotten notion that allowing public access to public information creates nothing but trouble.